Price v. State, 49A04-0812-CR-698
4th Dist., 08-21-09, Ind.App.
Attorney: Ruth Johnson
Holding: I.C. 35-46-3-12(b)provides that “[a] person who knowingly or intentionally beats a vertebrate animal commits cruelty to an animal, a Class A misdemeanor.” In addition, subsection (e) states that “[i]t is a defense to a prosecution under this section that the accused person:…engaged in a reasonable and recognized act of training, handling, or disciplining the vertebrate animal.” Defendant argued that the statute’s exemption of “reasonable” training and discipline renders the statute unconstitutionally vague because the term can have various meanings depending on who interprets it. Here, Defendant admitted to grabbing his dog by the back of the neck to immobilize him. Defendant then repeatedly struck the dog with a belt several times with enough force to make the dog scream loudly every time he was struck. Court could not say a person of ordinary intelligence would not be aware that these actions violate I.C. 35-46-3-12(b). Furthermore, a person of ordinary intelligence would know that these actions are not “reasonable” acts of discipline or training, which are exempt from purview of statute. Thus, statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to Defendant. Held, judgment affirmed.
See also: Tooley v. State, No. 49A04-0902-CR-62 (rejecting argument that terms “unnecessarily” and “cruelly” in statute defining “beat” are highly subjective terms that invite “arbitrary arrests and prosecutions” and fail to provide notice as to what conduct is prohibited).
